Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Nick Thomadis

Planning of next updates

Recommended Posts

Regarding the carrier discussion, I want them in game personally, as designable units for a few reasons. 

1 - Aircraft Carriers did not come into their own until the 40's had already started, Taranto, Pearl Harbour and the sinking of the Bismarck were the first real successes they had achieved (and Bismarck was luck along with the German Fire Control being too modern to deal with stringbags.) The aircraft themselves were simply not that capable before 1939, either unable to carry heavy payloads, too short ranged, poor navigation systems, or not being modern enough as the Army Air Force of most nations took priority. By 1940 in game, the Campaign will be in it's final five to ten years of sixty, so having powerful-ish Carriers at that point is not a problem. 

2 - Navies devoted resources to researching and building Carriers long before WW2, with the first successful ship-borne flights taking place in WW1, just as with subs, the budget and time spent on this ought to be simulated in game. 

3 - Subsidiary Carrier Doctrine. This was the dominant Naval Theory for Carriers before WW2, that they would partake in a 'Subsidiary' or Support role, acting with their air arm as scouts and ASW units, prior to the large Carrier Battles of WW2, this would be easy and quite fun to implement in game, using biplanes to find enemy fleets and provide intelligence. On that same note, I really would like to see Cruiser/Battleship catapult aircraft as well. 

4 - Finally, and this is the most important point for me. Ships have AA. Right now we do not have to worry about AA or AA Fire Control on our ships at all, and as with point 3, we do not have to worry about Catapult Aircraft systems either, now while AA is not heavy, developing good AA is costly, and Catapult Systems and Aviation hangers were heavy, right now this is again not simulated in game, so ships are, broadly speaking, not as accurate as they could be. (On an aesthetic note, ships with no AA tears at my poor naval purist soul, they look so bare and naked!) 

I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but the Carrier is not something that can be ignored in a Naval game that takes part during the early part of their history, same as subs, which I would personally also like to see as design-able as well, though they should not be present in fleet actions. A system similar to Atlantic Fleet would be fine for them in my opinion. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Reaper Jack said:

1 - Aircraft Carriers did not come into their own until the 40's had already started, Taranto, Pearl Harbour and the sinking of the Bismarck were the first real successes they had achieved (and Bismarck was luck along with the German Fire Control being too modern to deal with stringbags.) The aircraft themselves were simply not that capable before 1939, either unable to carry heavy payloads, too short ranged, poor navigation systems, or not being modern enough as the Army Air Force of most nations took priority. By 1940 in game, the Campaign will be in it's final five to ten years of sixty, so having powerful-ish Carriers at that point is not a problem. 

As I mentioned before in this discussion: First successes of carriers happened during ww2 not  because older planes weren't good enough but because they simply didn't get chance to achieve some success before (because there wasn't any war before then).

If there would be such a war they might gain first achievements way sooner. In this case there would be more effort and experiences to improve naval planes.

I think it would be nice if carriers would become available in 1913-1914 (Ark Royal) starting with really old and poor planes and then there would be normal reseach progress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

As I mentioned before in this discussion: First successes of carriers happened during ww2 not  because older planes weren't good enough but because they simply didn't get chance to achieve some success before (because there wasn't any war before then).

If there would be such a war they might gain first achievements way sooner. In this case there would be more effort and experiences to improve naval planes.

I think it would be nice if carriers would become available in 1913-1914 (Ark Royal) starting with really old and poor planes and then there would be normal reseach progress.

sorry but that nothing but a claim.

earlier air planes weren't  able to threaten warships.

Dive bombing didn't exist as tactic and the bombs were too weak to make serious damage.

They were able to sink ships which didn't fight back or moved but there is no reason to believe that we would have SBD in 1922, only because there is a new war.

 

In fact it was not as if Air power wasn't used.

In the middle east it was to suppress local rebellions. Yet it still took its time to the 30s till planes made serious jumps in abilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SiWi said:

sorry but that nothing but a claim.

earlier air planes weren't  able to threaten warships.

Dive bombing didn't exist as tactic and the bombs were too weak to make serious damage.

They were able to sink ships which didn't fight back or moved but there is no reason to believe that we would have SBD in 1922, only because there is a new war.

 

In fact it was not as if Air power wasn't used.

In the middle east it was to suppress local rebellions. Yet it still took its time to the 30s till planes made serious jumps in abilities. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Type_184

i don't understant why you mention only dive bombers. If you follow this link you would discover that first air-dropped torpedo was used in 1915.

While of course for armed ship it would be easy to shoot down.

I just don't see any problem with using really week planes. Some players would find a usage for them for sure.

Who says we would Attack warships with them? (we might use them the same way as SMS Wolf did)

Also I am of course aware that there were some contflicts where planes took place but those weren't naval planes so it didn't directly leave to their improvement.

And of course this is just a claim. Campaing Will differ from reality. So we can't count on historical facts. In which  case what else than assume can se do?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Type_184

i don't understant why you mention only dive bombers. If you follow this link you would discover that first air-dropped torpedo was used in 1915.

While of course for armed ship it would be easy to shoot down.

I just don't see any problem with using really week planes. Some players would find a usage for them for sure.

Who says we would Attack warships with them? (we might use them the same way as SMS Wolf did)

Also I am of course aware that there were some contflicts where planes took place but those weren't naval planes so it didn't directly leave to their improvement.

And of course this is just a claim. Campaing Will differ from reality. So we can't count on historical facts. In which  case what else than assume can se do?

 

 

 

I used dive bombing as an example of what was missing in terms of aviation technology.

 

And I didn't object to weak planes.

You are the one who assumed that if we have CV in game every one will be building Essex class CV and with plane technology of the 30's/40's, not me.

 

If you assume that why don't reject Subs because you assume they get anti ships missile in the 1910's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SiWi said:

And I didn't object to weak planes.

Well you said that planes weren't real thread for warships back then. So i thought that you wanted to say that it's reason for not having them in-game. (which i think Is not truth because altrought that there Is still use for them)

 

7 minutes ago, SiWi said:

You are the one who assumed that if we have CV in game every one will be building Essex class CV and with plane technology of the 30's/40's, not me.

I honestly don't understant what you want to say here and to which part of my previous comment this referes.

 

9 minutes ago, SiWi said:

If you assume that why don't reject Subs because you assume they get anti ships missile in the 1910's?

I don't assume anything like that.

I assumed that naval planes would get better sooner if there is a war that would cause more effort to improve them. (which i just think it truth) but if we talk about game that doesn't strictly follow history. Than we just have to assume.

And also if you take a look at official blog there's  written that technological progress Will be kind of random while we can influence it. So we might get certain technologies before they really became available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

Well you said that planes weren't real thread for warships back then. So i thought that you wanted to say that it's reason for not having them in-game. (which i think Is not truth because altrought that there Is still use for them)

You are the one that keeps arguing to limit CV's, because you think they would be too op. Not me.

I was showing that they wouldn't be.

Not quite sure what the later part of your sentence is suppose to mean. 

 

Quote

I honestly don't understant what you want to say here and to which part of my previous comment this referes

Its a reference to your argument that, because we can have war more earlier in the game, you assume that CV's will be 10-20 earlier mature and that CV spam (not any other spam) needs to be limited.

Quote

I don't assume anything like that.

I assumed that naval planes would get better sooner if there is a war that would cause more effort to improve them. (which i just think it truth) but if we talk about game that doesn't strictly follow history. Than we just have to assume.

And also if you take a look at official blog there's  written that technological progress Will be kind of random while we can influence it. So we might get certain technologies before they really became available.

But again, you assume technology jumps of 10-20 years before the time.

That would be like radar in the 1900's.

That is a not a plausible assumption and no reason to limit CV's around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SiWi said:

You are the one that keeps arguing to limit CV's, because you think they would be too op. Not me.

I was showing that they wouldn't be.

Not quite sure what the later part of your sentence is suppose to mean. 

I was always talking only about numbers of cv's. Never about their research. And carriers should be op because they really were op.

5 minutes ago, SiWi said:

Its a reference to your argument that, because we can have war more earlier in the game, you assume that CV's will be 10-20 earlier mature and that CV spam (not any other spam) needs to be limited.

Well i've never said anything about 10-20 years. And i think that the carrier spam doesn't require anymore comments because everything was already said.

 

7 minutes ago, SiWi said:

But again, you assume technology jumps of 10-20 years before the time.

That would be like radar in the 1900's.

That is a not a plausible assumption and no reason to limit CV's around it.

Again i never said any specific number of years. 

Difference between radar and cv's: the first practical radar was produced during/just before ww2 where it immidiately proved itself important So the research immidiately receiver huge support. And there Is no unhistorical event we could possibly speed up research of it.

While naval planes were known long before ww2 And this war was the one that gave them Chance to prove themselves important. And if this war would come sooner than they would sooner prove their importance. And their research would sooner receive more funds And attention.

(That is a not a plausible assumption and no reason to limit CV's around it.)

I didn't talk about limitating cv's here. As I said before i don't want to limit their research.

This Is not what the post was about. I wrote there reasons why carriers should be available before 30's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

I was always talking only about numbers of cv's. Never about their research. And carriers should be op because they really were op.

I never claimed that you want to limited Research I reject your narrative that CV's would become instantly OP in the game because they would instantly skip a decade or two they needed in the real world to be the danger we know them today.

They were not OP in the 1910 and 1920 (or earlier 1930's). Which was the point of the guy you respond to.

Quote

Well i've never said anything about 10-20 years. And i think that the carrier spam doesn't require anymore comments because everything was already said.

Then which sense makes your objection that CV would be too OP so ealier in the campaign, unless we limit they numbers?

Quote

Again i never said any specific number of years. 

You did claim that a war in the 1920 would have catapult CV development and could in game.

That is 10-20 years.

Quote

Difference between radar and cv's: the first practical radar was produced during/just before ww2 where it immidiately proved itself important So the research immidiately receiver huge support. And there Is no unhistorical event we could possibly speed up research of it.

Thats ridiculous.

You yourself made the argument that more war means more funding, means more research. That would also apply to anything lese, including radar.

Quote

While naval planes were known long before ww2 And this war was the one that gave them Chance to prove themselves important. And if this war would come sooner than they would sooner prove their importance. And their research would sooner receive more funds And attention.

Assuming that conflicts gets your seal of being important enough since the RAFs actions in the middle east don#t seem to count as war...

 

Quote

I didn't talk about limitating cv's here. As I said before i don't want to limit their research.

This Is not what the post was about. I wrote there reasons why carriers should be available before 30's.

But you did wanted to limit their numbers before because of "being OP".

Also the guy you answered was arguing that the CV's became dangerous during the 30/40s not that they only then were invented.  

Quote

1 - Aircraft Carriers did not come into their own until the 40's had already started, Taranto, Pearl Harbour and the sinking of the Bismarck were the first real successes they had achieved (and Bismarck was luck along with the German Fire Control being too modern to deal with stringbags.) The aircraft themselves were simply not that capable before 1939, either unable to carry heavy payloads, too short ranged, poor navigation systems, or not being modern enough as the Army Air Force of most nations took priority. By 1940 in game, the Campaign will be in it's final five to ten years of sixty, so having powerful-ish Carriers at that point is not a problem. 

He quite clearly says, that CVs exist before but became dangerous in the 40's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, if we see how Japanese viewed aircraft carriers we can see that there is merit to the point of traditionalist vs new ideas, we can see clearly how it ended up. This said it was impractical thinking that ended up costing them a war and it is mostly typical for them. As American and British were far more progressive


I would love to see something different 

- first a seaplane tender/ships capable of carrying seaplanes that have mostly reconnaissance capability 
Then from this developing carrier that early on require a lot of experimentation and trial and error sort of approach (as we can see with British carriers early on). I believe they should also require a lot of anti submarine escorts as a preferred target. Limiting their capability quite significantly.

 
Then I would love  the progression with carriers based on their capability to 

1 - Have large number of different planes - lets say you start with 1 wing and slowly increase displacement 

2 - Having ability to quickly refuel and rearm them - very important as this would dictate how much does it take to prepare them for next mission 

3 - Having ability to launch them quickly 
 

And with those I believe I that an overall balancing would come as it did in real life and I mean $$$$$$.

Carrier - even small one - should be extremely expensive, (even with very limited capability to operate)  expensive to build, more expensive to operate and worth nearly player soul to replenish after combat. Not to mention that losing half of your planes would be a mission kill. You are not gaining them back until another carrier rebase squadron or you get some from base. Potentialy even light damage would knock carrier out of the combat. 

 

Edited by Grayknight
coloring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Devs have said they aren't doing CVs as part of the initial release, if at all.

In other words, the finished game will not include CVs at release. Whether they choose to do the significant work required to include them at some later date remains to be seen.

By all means continue to discuss it, I'm merely pointing out the facts (that some of you already know as you were making the same arguments back when the devs made a definitive statement about CVs).

Cheers

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Given the game is supposed to cover something like 1890-1940 (or 45? 50?), I for one would like to see the focus AWAY FROM ALL THE LATE ERA/WW2 TECH.

If 80% of the game is NOT going to be that, I'd like to see more put into what it WILL be.

From a gunnery ship perspective, there are incredible riches to be explored from 1900-1920. Far, far more ships from far more and bigger navies. Trouble is, of course, most people are ignorant of WW2 ships and tech. Good luck with anything before THAT.

Fun fact: back in WoWS Alpha testing I pointed out they ought to base the game on WW1 navies and up to 1940 because they wouldn't need a gazillion paper BS ships AND they could largely ignore CVs which they ought to because IMO they'd NEVER balance them to anyone's satisfaction, not those who play them nor those who just have to put up with them. We all know how that turned out, LOL.

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SiWi said:

They were not OP in the 1910 and 1920 (or earlier 1930's). Which was the point of the guy you respond to.

 

Well that's debatable but if we assume that this is true. Than again in-game this is not relevant because research advance will be kind of random so they can become op way sooner than in reality.

(this also answeres quote below)

14 hours ago, SiWi said:

You did claim that a war in the 1920 would have catapult CV development and could in game.

That is 10-20 years.

 

14 hours ago, SiWi said:

You did claim that a war in the 1920 would have catapult CV development and could in game.

That is 10-20 years.

14 hours ago, SiWi said:

You did claim that a war in the 1920 would have catapult CV development and could in game.

That is 10-20 years.

Okey i don't remember saying this and I am lazy to look for that. But if I said that (which is possible) than catapult doesn't need 10-20 years skip to become available in 1920. In fact it was already used in 1920's and it existed even sooner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult)

 

14 hours ago, SiWi said:

Thats ridiculous.

You yourself made the argument that more war means more funding, means more research. That would also apply to anything lese, including radar.

I honestly don't see anything ridiculous about that. Of course war means more funding for research but i would be careful with the statement that every research receives more funding. Some research are prioritized over others. Some receives way bigger funding than during peace while others (that doesn't seem that important for war effort) receives less funding or are even stopped in favor of those that seem more important.

Also there is a huge benefit in funding research that works on improving inventions that are already working than invest in totally new invantions. Because if you support improving something that you already use than you can be sure that you will use this improved version but if you invest in something totally new then it's risky because after long research and funds you sacrifice for this it might prove yourself totally useless. (PAC for example)

15 hours ago, SiWi said:

Assuming that conflicts gets your seal of being important enough since the RAFs actions in the middle east don#t seem to count as war...

 

I didn't say that theiractions weren't important. There were also other conflicts that proved planes very important (like spanish civil war) but those were all planes used in land combat. There wasn't any conflict naval planes could prove themselves important. (yes naval planes were used in second sino-japanese war but they were used the same way as land-based planes while carriers worked like any other airfield based on land)

 

15 hours ago, SiWi said:

But you did wanted to limit their numbers before because of "being OP".

Also the guy you answered was arguing that the CV's became dangerous during the 30/40s not that they only then were invented.  

15 hours ago, SiWi said:

He quite clearly says, that CVs exist before but became dangerous in the 40's. 

Yes I want to limit their numbers but it wasn't point of that post.

I know he didn't wan't to say that they were invented in 30's. As you said: he said that airplanes became dangerous in 30's/40's which again if we assume that this is true than it is not relevant in this game because of random research advance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the next update it would be nice to see quad turrets similar to the King George V class or French Richelieu class. Also I've always wanted to build the Scharnhorst Class of battleship but the German Triple 11inch guns but they dont match in looks.

Also it would be nice to be able to build multiple classes/types of ships for custom battles. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some day this thread may reach 20 pages. Just think about it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

Some day this thread may reach 20 pages. Just think about it...

Maybe 100 within a year if we are lucky lol.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BobRoss0902 said:

#CampaignOrRiot for next update lmao.

If there is not campaing in the next update (even thinking about it is painful) we might restore the noble tradition of defenestration...

Just for the record: it's just a joke

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I could accept if the campaign wouldn't come in this month... BUT they would have to tell it pretty much now.

"If they came hey guys tomorrow comes the next patch, campaign at the end of the year", I would be angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should have faith, they will probs release it in july or august which would be acceptable (although after smeggy assignments i would to unwind before i leave tutorial island forevah).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I think we should have faith, they will probs release it in july or august which would be acceptable (although after smeggy assignments i would to unwind before i leave tutorial island forevah).

it would be understandable, given the situation and the size of the task, but I do think that if they know that they should tell us soon.

And sure, if its gets July or August then so be it.

But if its get later then that... well you probably knew you wouldn't make it relative early. No harm in telling us before just we assume it "has" to come.

 

I mean I check this forum just to see if there are final news on the matter...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cptbarney said:

I think we should have faith, they will probs release it in july or august

May I ask you upon what score do you assume this?

I thought that it's gonna be june. For following reasons:

  1. Nick mentioned ,,upcoming first campaing version'' in the Alpha-6 thread.
  2. There is a question in the support forum if the game is going to be released in the first half of 2020 (as promised on steam) and he was answered that probably yes and steam release is tied with campaing, am i right?
  3. There was an promised announcement of the campaing and steam releasefor last week. (hopefully they will make the announcement this week) and why would they make announcement now if it should come in 2 months?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aceituna said:

May I ask you upon what score do you assume this?

I thought that it's gonna be june. For following reasons:

  1. Nick mentioned ,,upcoming first campaing version'' in the Alpha-6 thread.
  2. There is a question in the support forum if the game is going to be released in the first half of 2020 (as promised on steam) and he was answered that probably yes and steam release is tied with campaing, am i right?
  3. There was an promised announcement of the campaing and steam releasefor last week. (hopefully they will make the announcement this week) and why would they make announcement now if it should come in 2 months?

 

Im basing it off how much they have done alongside the other major updates, the smoll team and how complex they want the first iteration and how stable they want before release, i usually say it will release/take/arrive longer since then if it doesn't arrive by the date that was suggested before im not so angry or chuffed in anyway.

I don't know if the campaign is coming in the steam release (been too busy to check), anyways we will see, i want it in june but im also preparing for a july and/or august release (in-case something goes wrong on their end).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

May I ask you upon what score do you assume this?

I thought that it's gonna be june. For following reasons:

  1. Nick mentioned ,,upcoming first campaing version'' in the Alpha-6 thread.
  2. There is a question in the support forum if the game is going to be released in the first half of 2020 (as promised on steam) and he was answered that probably yes and steam release is tied with campaing, am i right?
  3. There was an promised announcement of the campaing and steam releasefor last week. (hopefully they will make the announcement this week) and why would they make announcement now if it should come in 2 months?

 

Only a confirmed 'release date' is a timetable that dev’s would stick too, anything else is under development, especially under the title of EA, in which development will and does take many turns, twist, delays and rollbacks.

Any promises or statements should only be considered as guides and nothing more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...